At the end of the day the guy was being a ######, but the officers acted improperly.
The youth should have left when asked (first by staff, then by officers). He didn't, resisted detention and was tasered. For me this isn't that much of a problem as the evidence I've seen would seem to indicate that you're only temporarily incapacitated after a taser shock, and it doesn't do lasting damage.
What annoys me is that after being incapacitated and handcuffed, the officers didn't just drag him outside, they made the whole thing a spectacle and brutally assaulted a man that posed no serious threat to them or other members of the public. The only way for him to inflict injury on anyone would be via kicking or biting.
Now, there were 4 cops and 1 of him. As long as they didn't do anything that could be considered as inflicting pain on the restrainee, I doubt any of the students there would have acted up. In this case you drag the guy to his feet with one guy on either side to hold him up and the other two acting as escorts until you get to the van. The less calm you act, the weaker and less authoritative you appear. I would have certainly acted since it immediately strikes me as an unwarranted show of force that is unlawful.
The videos THEM linked do not show any one of those people being repeatedly tasered and then asked to get up. In fact, almost all of them felt the desire to recuperate in the prone position. I do think the guy had opportunity to stand up after the first tasering, but I don't think tasering a restrainee is going to get them to co-operate any quicker, that's just simply sadistic.
When asked for their badge numbers, they should have simply said: "Come and find me when this guy is safely in the back of the van and I'll gladly give them to you". It's inexcusable to threaten law-abiding members of the public with violence, even if you think they're being cocky little ######.
Given the cop's track record, this incident proves he shouldn't be wearing a badge because he doesn't display the qualities that should be normally associated with it. He should be removed from 'the force' (me likey pun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />) because keeping someone with a track record of mishandling situations reflects terribly on an institution that is supposed to uphold the law.
[Edit] Just to say the only people who did the right thing in that situation were the students who stayed and then later gave accounts of the situation (including the video evidence), and also the ones who questioned the officers, pleaded with them to stop and asked them for their details. Oh, and the library clerk and the UCLA 'police' who were involved before what we saw.
<!--quoteo(post=1580880:date=Nov 26 2006, 02:16 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 26 2006, 02:16 PM) [snapback]1580880[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think he meant that beatings more often that not lead to permanent or prolonged physical damage, and pepper spray would make everyone in the room choke. Probably a bad idea to use pepper spray indoors. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that he could have used far more violent means, and that it's fortunate he didn't.
To get back to Revlic: I don't see that as an excuse. What he did was neither appropriate nor acceptable. That he could have done something even MORE inappropriate and unacceptable does not speak in his defense.
After the very first tasering, Mostafa promised repeatedly to leave, and tried to point out that he had said he would leave even before he was tasered. So the cops waited a minute for him to recover, so he could get up.
Once he recovered, what did he do? He launched into a speech about how he was being racially profiled and all that junk, and how terrible the cops were. They tried to get him up to leave, and he refused. So much for his promises--actions speak louder than words, and this guy's actions were un-cooperative at every step of the way.
After the 2nd taser, I turned it off because I didn't need to see any more to know Mostafa was doing his best to resist arrest.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Cxwf, go back and watch the whole thing before you comment, please.
The student was grabbed (physically) by the officers <i>on his way out of the library</i>. At this point is where the video starts, and he yells for them to take their hands off him. Not long after he is tasered, and there is a long break when he is being held down and handcuffed, yelling about the violation and profiling, still under the effects of the taser.. the break is so they can handcuff him, not to let him recover. They then demand that he stand up, under a minute after the initial tasing.
They then repeatedly taser him, when they have two officers on hand who could very easily simply pick him up and carry him out. Instead, they demand that he stand up, and taser him again after he attempts to comply. He then goes limp and stays limp through repeated demands that he stand up, and repeated tasings.
I wish we could actually try to argue about what happened here, instead of what we, individually, wish had happened.
I myself wish that they had not tasered him, or that the only reason why they did it was that he was resisting arrest or something like that. That would have placed the blame squarely at <i>his</i> feet, and he would not have been a victim of brutality but merely someone who got what was coming to him. But sadly, that is not the case. The man <i>was</i> brutalised. It is sad, but the truth. The sooner we all accept that and start basing our arguments on that, the sooner this can turn into a serious debate.
<!--quoteo(post=1581004:date=Nov 26 2006, 03:41 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 26 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]1581004[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I wish we could actually try to argue about what happened here, instead of what we, individually, wish had happened.
I myself wish that they had not tasered him, or that the only reason why they did it was that he was resisting arrest or something like that. That would have placed the blame squarely at <i>his</i> feet, and he would not have been a victim of brutality but merely someone who got what was coming to him. But sadly, that is not the case. The man <i>was</i> brutalised. It is sad, but the truth. The sooner we all accept that and start basing our arguments on that, the sooner this can turn into a serious debate. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Careful, now. If we all agreed it was brutality, then what would we be arguing about? It's pretty obvious from this statement that you don't wish to listen to anyone else's ideas on what happened, and that you are asserting your own ideas on what happened.
In the end, what we perceive is what we believe. Fact is what is generally accepted by most people. Actually, I don't really know what we're trying to discuss here, as the argument hasn't moved from it's initial position:
-One side thinks the student was the one who triggered the incident, but the officers may have taken it too far.
-The other side maintains that the officers are completely wrong and the incident is nothing more than a case of power trip, albeit one with higher consequences than the usual.
Let's settle this without rehashing the same arguments on the fifth page as we've had on the first to the fourth, huh? Otherwise, let the thread die honorably.
And I'll encourage everyone again (including myself) to re-read rule number one: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=1699903149161911296&showtopic=43638" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....showtopic=43638</a>
I am not asserting my ideas, I am asserting facts (facts backed up with videos and eyewittness accounts) OVER ideas (which are not backed up by videos, or indeed any other evidence).
I know there is a sentiment that every viewpoint is valid, but I don't subscribe to that. If I show someone a white piece of paper and they claim that it is black, that is NOT a valid viewpoint. Their opinion is wrong.
That goes for rule number one too: Fact overrides opinion. If opinion goes against fact, sure, I'll consider that the facts are wrong, and the opinions are right. For all of five seconds.
I am not insisting on my personal viewpoint here, I am insisting on reality. The question of whether the actions of the officers were warranted or not is what we are supposed to debate here, and I am not trying to squelch that. What I AM trying to squelch are the conflicting versions of the events in that library. They are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of investigation. If there are conflicting versions of the events, one is true and one is false. One must be accepted, and one must be rejected.
I retract my statements about brutality. Those are opinions, not facts.
It seems that we need to go back to the beginning, stop arguing morality, and start arguing reality. A moral debate is not possible when the two sides each have their own version of what happened.
The fact of the matter is that there is only ONE sequence of events that is true. Either the student DID incite revolt and was tasered as a consequence of that, or the student was FIRST tasered repeatedly and THEN started not cooperating (either out of spite or out of inability due to the tasering).
Arguing morality does not make sense when each side is arguing from a different version of events. We need to establish a consensus on the chain of events first. I propose that this will prove impossible, as the two viewpoints each become almost impossible to defend in the light of one version or the other.
To cut to the chase: <u>I see a severe lack of evidence for the case that he revolted and resisted and was tasered as a consequence of that, and hereby ask for such evidence to be presented.</u> Without evidence for that version of events, and in light of the evidence for the other version of events, I cannot accept arguments based on that premise and will, for my part, consider this conversation to be over.
<!--quoteo(post=1581047:date=Nov 26 2006, 05:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 26 2006, 05:58 PM) [snapback]1581047[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I am not asserting my ideas, I am asserting facts (facts backed up with videos and eyewittness accounts) OVER ideas (which are not backed up by videos, or indeed any other evidence).
I know there is a sentiment that every viewpoint is valid, but I don't subscribe to that. If I show someone a white piece of paper and they claim that it is black, that is NOT a valid viewpoint. Their opinion is wrong. That goes for rule number one too: Fact overrides opinion. If opinion goes against fact, sure, I'll consider that the facts are wrong, and the opinions are right. For all of five seconds.
I am not insisting on my personal viewpoint here, I am insisting on reality. The question of whether the actions of the officers were warranted or not is what we are supposed to debate here, and I am not trying to squelch that. What I AM trying to squelch are the conflicting versions of the events in that library. They are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of investigation. If there are conflicting versions of the events, one is true and one is false. One must be accepted, and one must be rejected. I retract my statements about brutality. Those are opinions, not facts. It seems that we need to go back to the beginning, stop arguing morality, and start arguing reality. A moral debate is not possible when the two sides each have their own version of what happened.
The fact of the matter is that there is only ONE sequence of events that is true. Either the student DID incite revolt and was tasered as a consequence of that, or the student was FIRST tasered repeatedly and THEN started not cooperating (either out of spite or out of inability due to the tasering).
Arguing morality does not make sense when each side is arguing from a different version of events. We need to establish a consensus on the chain of events first. I propose that this will prove impossible, as the two viewpoints each become almost impossible to defend in the light of one version or the other. To cut to the chase: <u>I see a severe lack of evidence for the case that he revolted and resisted and was tasered as a consequence of that, and hereby ask for such evidence to be presented.</u> Without evidence for that version of events, and in light of the evidence for the other version of events, I cannot accept arguments based on that premise and will, for my part, consider this conversation to be over. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Opinions are neither right nor wrong. Things can be both true and false at the same time. ("I am a liar") And arguing about what happened isn't really arguing, as there are no clear two sides, nor reasons behind the argument. What does it matter the chain of events unless that chain somehow changes what light you view the incident in?
No, I think what we're arguing here is whether or not the officers were right to use the taser, based our own standards of morality. Your previous statements, as you have admitted, assert that it was wrong; indeed, that tasering was matter-of-factly wrong. That was what I had issue with, but it's been cleared up, so it's no problem.
It's just as obvious to the defenders of the officers that the student was resisting all through the video as it is obvious to you that there is no evidence to support that claim. What we have here is a difference in observation, similar to what the police get when they interview witnesses.
If anyone has anything beyond simple intuition based on the video to share, (ie, police training or field experience, UCLA facilities use protocol, etc) then please do share it. Otherwise we'll just keep going around until this thread combusts.
As to evidence that the student resisted at all, I offer that if UCLA's procedures are anything like my beloved WVU's, then he would have had to defeat at least one layer of authority before anyone with arresting power would have been in the room. (being asked to leave by the student workers)
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The statement "This statement is a lie." in reference to itself is not 'both right and wrong', it is an intentionally paradoxical statement. It can be considered neither right nor wrong, as it contradicts itself, by design, as a statement of fact.
I have posted a link to the taser protocol earlier in the thread. From the evidence caught on tape, the officers had zero right or cause to utilize the taser on the individual. On tape, he did not resist arrest. He did not fight. He vocally stated that he was not fighting, and would/was trying to leave. He hung limp, and there were two officers; more than sufficient to carry a nonresponsive (NOTE: nonresponsive does NOT equate to aggressive or resisting), handcuffed suspect out the door bodily.
Short version. We have zero evidence other than the officers' statements that he was aggressive in any way. If YOUR rights were being violated, if YOU had been tasered without warning, I highly doubt that you would simply quietly go along. Conservatives most especially so, given the stereotypical view concerning jackbooted thugs (aside from Bush and co.).
We do however have multiple eyewitness accounts and even a video tape, showing the officers abusing a handcuffed subject, and threatening the use of a potentially lethal weapon against a bystander demanding information that the officer is <b>legally required</b> to provide, after several prior requests for said information were ignored.
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Irrespective of whether the student was actually inciting the crowd. Were I one of the officers, I would most certainly be concerned about the possiblity of the crowd turning against me. Make no mistake, this is not a case of a few officers exercising their sadism. They had an uncooperative prisoner and an irate crowd watching and commenting on their every move. I would consider that to be a stressful position to be in.
One thing I don't believe has been touched on yet in this thread is that its quite likely there was a relatively significant period of time between the police being called and them actually arriving. It's not unreasonable to assume that within that period, the student calmed down from his initially uncooperative state and was quite prepared to leave. However, as luck would have it, he was leaving just as the police were arriving.
In short, circumstance counts for more than a 7 minute video and 20/20 hindsight when dealing with these things. Yeah the student probably recieved a few too many tazers, however he did seem more interested in throwing a tantrum than initially cooperating.
The exact course of events is of importance here because it dictates my opinion of the officers' actions. I am not rigorously for or against the use of tasers - rather, whether they should be used or not depends on the situation. And therefore, depending on the situation, my opinion of the officers' actions will differ drastically.
So far, the bulk of the evidence supports a sequence of events in which I consider the taser use to have been a drastic over-reaction. In order to get me to change that opinion, it is necessary to present evidence that the sequence of events was different. We only have the officers' own words for that, and they are outnumbered by the bystanders. Why would the bystanders be lying? To slander the officers? On the other hand, the motivation for the officers to lie is clear: To present themselves in a better light.
Finally, I fail to see the point in basing your opinion on an unsubstantiated sequence of events. Yes, <u>if he had resisted and incited revolt, tasering him would be acceptable and justifiable. I am not disputing that.</u> But where is the evidence to support that? For all I know, that never happened, so what is the point of arguing whether the taser use WOULD have been acceptable IF that had happened?
I maintain that this is not as much a matter of opinion as it is a matter of evidence. I once again ask for evidence to be presented that he was resisting arrest and inciting revolt prior to the tasering. Innocent until proven guilty. You don't taser innocent men. And THAT is an opinion.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Mouse, utilization of a weapon on a restrained suspect, when the crowd is already upset demonstrates poor situational awareness more than anything else.
The officers would be borderline justified in tasing the subject ONCE for restrainment purposes. After that point, they could simply pick him up and carry him out, to get him out of the public eye. Not repeatedly tase the subject in front of an upset crowd of students, armed with cameras and some knowledge of law.
<!--quoteo(post=1581079:date=Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]1581079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The statement "This statement is a lie." in reference to itself is not 'both right and wrong', it is an intentionally paradoxical statement. It can be considered neither right nor wrong, as it contradicts itself, by design, as a statement of fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is paradoxical; it is neither right nor wrong. It is a foundation of fuzzy set theory, which means it can be partially included in a set, in this case, the sets of "right" and "wrong." Now, that means it can be <i>both</i> right and wrong at the same time.
Quite frankly, the reasons for having to defend an example made for such a purpose as supporting the idea that opinions can be both right and wrong are beyond me. I have no idea why you called me out on this.
<!--quoteo(post=1581079:date=Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]1581079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have posted a link to the taser protocol earlier in the thread. From the evidence caught on tape, the officers had zero right or cause to utilize the taser on the individual. On tape, he did not resist arrest. He did not fight. He vocally stated that he was not fighting, and would/was trying to leave. He hung limp, and there were two officers; more than sufficient to carry a nonresponsive (NOTE: nonresponsive does NOT equate to aggressive or resisting), handcuffed suspect out the door bodily. Short version. We have zero evidence other than the officers' statements that he was aggressive in any way. If YOUR rights were being violated, if YOU had been tasered without warning, I highly doubt that you would simply quietly go along. Conservatives most especially so, given the stereotypical view concerning jackbooted thugs (aside from Bush and co.).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we can all read a document on protocol. And I can read all those damned documents about how I need to write up software specifications in the "real world" they feed me in class, but I know from experience that each firm has it's own format for doing these things; I'll need to learn the specifics of it again from each employer.
Standard operating procedure sometimes varies a lot from what the books tell you. I'd like input from someone whose actually been there, or knows how it actually works.
Plus a lot those judgment calls depend on what's happening in the heat of the moment. Again, someone who's been there would have better insight. I have my own opinions, but we've already been over those, and again, and again.
<!--quoteo(post=1581079:date=Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]1581079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We do however have multiple eyewitness accounts and even a video tape, showing the officers abusing a handcuffed subject, and threatening the use of a potentially lethal weapon against a bystander demanding information that the officer is <b>legally required</b> to provide, after several prior requests for said information were ignored. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And we've been over this, too. It's what we're discussion, in fact. If you don't want to discuss this, and instead want to continue making these kinds of forceful assertions, then please just read everyone else's thoughts.
When you go on the offensive like this, it makes it hard for the opposition not to take a hard defensive stance and throw grief at you. From your hostility and the way the thread is named, it seems more like you came here asking for vindication of your own beliefs than to get other perspectives on the situation. That doesn't really qualify as a discussion so much as a solicitation. I'm just saying that that's the what I get from it, and I'd be surprised if others didn't.
I'm not taking sides in this thread anymore, so don't take me the wrong way. From here on in, I'm just trying to mediate the discussion. Keep an open mind; if you're on the side of the officers, entertain the possibility that the police made every wrong choice. What would cause this? If you're on the side of the student, entertain the possibility that the crowd was highly charged, probably holding anti-authoritarian views, and had been listening to really blood curdling screams. Screams that sort of defy the gravity of the situation: the shock hurts like hell I'm sure, but he's not dying, and that's what it really sounds like.
If we can't do these things, then we should probably stop posting in this thread.
Keep in mind, also, the video doesn't start until AFTER Mostafa had been tasered the first time. So it unfortunately provides exactly ZERO evidence one way or the other about whether the first taser was justified.
For that, we have the statements from the officers, the statements from the crowd, and the statement from Mostafa. None of which has been actually provided, or even linked to, in this thread. Despite that, people have referenced them as absolutely supporting their own viewpoint--on both sides.
We continue to refer to events before the video as if we all know what happened, even though clearly none of us know what happened. Perhaps first we should attempt to establish the course of events leading up to the FIRST tasing? And then argue about whether subsequent tasings were brutality or not?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Cwxf, the video starts as the student is trying to leave. The 'get your hands off me' is when the officers had stopped him at the front door. The first tasering is the first one on the tape. Again. PLEASE watch the entire video before you comment. I also linked two articles which should be read, for edification purposes.
Rob, a statement can be crafted to contradict itself. However, a contradiction cannot exist in actual facts. As lolfighter said previously, if a piece of paper is white, and someone calls it black, they are wrong. No matter what their opinion, the facts support that the paper is actually white. In this case, we have a tape showing the officers brutalizing, if not torturing a restrained suspect. This makes their brutality fact. You can show someone the tape, and when viewed objectively, see that they were utilizing unneccessary amounts of force on an unresisting victim.
And I'm sorry, the argument about how a situation is 'really' handled versus the documented requirements is simply a statement of how slack the enforcement of the marked rules are. You can receive a speeding ticket for one mile over the speed limit, regardless of if 'no other officer ever ticketted me for it around here'. Same thing cuts the other way. These officers overstepped the listed rules on taser use. They are simply being called on the fact at this point, given that they repeatedly used a taser on a nonresponsive, restrained suspect. The fact that the rules for use of a potentially-lethal weapon are only casually enforced is more a cause for alarm than a student not leaving a library.
<!--quoteo(post=1580831:date=Nov 25 2006, 11:36 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 25 2006, 11:36 PM) [snapback]1580831[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Uh, no. Those were Campus Police, not 'city'. Colleges out here have 'police' departments on-site. They can't carry firearms without a civilian-grade permit, though they can much more easily be certified for pepper spray or taser permits during the course of duty. They can also make arrests. These aren't your 'mall cops', they hover somewhere between rent-a-pigs and actual police officers, and have worse ego problems than a sheriff in a truckstop town frequented by the highway patrol. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a little late, but I'd like to disagree with you Talesin... I work for the UC System (UC-Davis). You're right, out here, campuses have police departments (note the lack of your sarcastic quotes). They are full fledged police department, and are no different from normal city police departments, they are just located on a campus.
<a href="http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/about_mission.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/about_mission.html</a>] <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Police officers of the UCLA Police Department are duly sworn peace officers under section 830.2(b) of the California Penal Code.<b> The officers of the department are armed and possess the same authority under the law as municipal police officers.</b> UCLA Police Officers patrol the campus 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They enforce the law, arrest violators, investigate and suppress crime, investigate traffic and bicycle accidents, and provide a full range of services to the community. The Police Department enforces all applicable local, state and federal laws. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1581185:date=Nov 26 2006, 11:35 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 11:35 PM) [snapback]1581185[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Cwxf, the video starts as the student is trying to leave. The 'get your hands off me' is when the officers had stopped him at the front door. The first tasering is the first one on the tape. Again. PLEASE watch the entire video before you comment. I also linked two articles which should be read, for edification purposes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The tape may be rolling, but the camera is located on the opposite side of the room, pointed at nothing in particular, and doesn't capture very clear sound either. The camera doesn't get close enough to the subject to offer much meaningful evidence until after he's already been tased. All we know before that is that he was yelling at the officers.
Ergo, you have no evidence as to whether that was justified or not. Just as I said.
Also, I read your article, and they didn't know what happened before the first tasing either. They did <i>briefly</i> describe two completely different versions of the events, one most likely taken from Mostafa and the other from the police, but neither version was included in enough detail to make any judgements from.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited November 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1581085:date=Nov 26 2006, 01:25 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 26 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]1581085[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The exact course of events is of importance here because it dictates my opinion of the officers' actions. I am not rigorously for or against the use of tasers - rather, whether they should be used or not depends on the situation. And therefore, depending on the situation, my opinion of the officers' actions will differ drastically. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right, we dont need to argue what happened on this scene, when it's more productive to argue the ethics assuming it happened a certain way. Instead of arguing what happened on this scene (since apparently the video and eye witness documentary doesnt tell the whole story) why dont we argue the ethics before applying them? In what degree is the officer entitled to act in a given situation etc.. etc..
<!--quoteo(post=1579776:date=Nov 22 2006, 09:15 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 22 2006, 09:15 PM) [snapback]1579776[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> === As a side note, I recommend we stop titling threads so aggressively. It immediately puts the opposition on the defensive, and that's never a good way to start a discussion, one side at the other's throat. I think we should make them instead a proposition. To use this thread as example, it might better be phrased "Student tazed 5 times at UCLA, is this Brutality?" or some such.
I could very well say, "Kerry is the antichrist" in an attempt to start a discussion, but I won't get nearly as effective of a reply as if I would have said, "I'm not sure of Kerry's intentions." I'll mull over adding this as a rule, if anyone has input. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1581185:date=Nov 27 2006, 12:35 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 27 2006, 12:35 AM) [snapback]1581185[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Rob, a statement can be crafted to contradict itself. However, a contradiction cannot exist in actual facts. As lolfighter said previously, if a piece of paper is white, and someone calls it black, they are wrong. No matter what their opinion, the facts support that the paper is actually white. In this case, we have a tape showing the officers brutalizing, if not torturing a restrained suspect. This makes their brutality fact. You can show someone the tape, and when viewed objectively, see that they were utilizing unneccessary amounts of force on an unresisting victim. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fact is something tied to conventional logic, and as I said before can be interpreted differently depending on popular <i>opinion</i>. Before Copernicus, it was fact that the earth was the center of the universe. Even if some people believed otherwise, it was still well known that you were supposed to believe it. A couple of centuries ago it was a fact that slavery was legal, now it's not.
And your video evidence is open to the same kinds of interpretation. Again I say that if it is not, if we can take your <i>opinion</i> of what you see in the video as fact, then this thread is pointless because what should we be debating? How right you are?
In any case, since paradoxes do exist in conventional logic, "This statement is a lie," it's pretty good proof that conventional logic can't be used for all circumstances. Therefore, things can sometimes be both true and false. This happens all the time in nature. It's both hot and cold outside; we call it warm. It's both black and white; we call it gray. Conventional logical has room for none of these concepts. Anyway, if you want to discuss the merits of conventional logic, I'd be happy to do so in another thread. It's off topic in here.
What remains is that you take your own interpretation of the video and assert it as fact. That's not a very balanced way to begin a discussion.
<!--quoteo(post=1581185:date=Nov 27 2006, 12:35 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 27 2006, 12:35 AM) [snapback]1581185[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And I'm sorry, the argument about how a situation is 'really' handled versus the documented requirements is simply a statement of how slack the enforcement of the marked rules are. You can receive a speeding ticket for one mile over the speed limit, regardless of if 'no other officer ever ticketted me for it around here'. Same thing cuts the other way. These officers overstepped the listed rules on taser use. They are simply being called on the fact at this point, given that they repeatedly used a taser on a nonresponsive, restrained suspect. The fact that the rules for use of a potentially-lethal weapon are only casually enforced is more a cause for alarm than a student not leaving a library. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People don't always follow the rules. Yes you can get pulled over for speeding by 1 mile and hour. By law you should get a fine, but many times (if you're not a ###### about it) an officer will cut you some slack, because there are extenuating circumstances. Circumstances like: it was your first offense on record, it's Christmas Eve, it's late, you were going downhill, everyone else was speeding and so you'd be a hazard if you were going slower than them, etc.
If we're going with "innocent until proven guilty," prove to everyone that there were no extenuating circumstances for the officers, don't just point to the video and expect everyone else to see the same things you do.
<!--quoteo(post=1581345:date=Nov 27 2006, 03:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 27 2006, 03:05 PM) [snapback]1581345[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually, as far as "innocent until proven guilty" goes, I see it like this:
Did the officers taser the student? Yes. Nobody is disputing that.
Is the student's guilt proven? No. Therefore, he is innocent.
Innocent man tasered. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Factually speaking, we know he was in the Library without identification. In TCU you cannot even enter without swiping your ID. This leads me to my call on this situation.
It should never have even occurred. Why is it even possible to enter without ID verification? This situation outgrew itself because the proper measures had not been taken <i>beforehand</i>.
Should the officer have provided his Badge number to the student requesting it? Yes, of course. But I prioritize getting that kid out of the library first. Hypothetically speaking, what if he wasn't what he claimed to be. What if he was our worst case scenario. An unauthorized person who intended on some harmful course of action. If he was? Instant failure. We'd be complaining about how people are dead and the school's poor security measures have failed us. So rather than switching sides of the fence then, I hold that position now. Get him out, fire the officers, and place devices that cannot be bypassed without an ID scan.
<!--quoteo(post=1581345:date=Nov 27 2006, 02:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 27 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]1581345[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually, as far as "innocent until proven guilty" goes, I see it like this:
Did the officers taser the student? Yes. Nobody is disputing that.
Is the student's guilt proven? No. Therefore, he is innocent.
Innocent man tasered. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's not how argument works! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You need to prove to the opposition the guilt of the officers. The opposition needs to prove to you the guilt of the student.
First one to concede looses. Stalemates turn stale and taste very bad.
@Cold nite:
He could have entered the library during public hours (before 11pm) and simply stayed passed his bedtime, so to speak.
Aahh, there you have me. My library isn't open to the public because we're a private university. They probably don't have a choice.
@Epidemic, I know he was a student who forgot his card, but the ONLY reason those police had the right to do what they did is because they need to assume that he ISN'T without proof. If, somehow, he was able to prove himself to be a student via computer in the library, i.e. the student login process that that university has (based off of what we have at TCU I'm guessing they'd have one too), then the police should back off. Having some stupid identification card for the sake of having it is ridiculous. Having a card in order to prove your right to be there is the important part.
I mean, the fact is that he was a student, but they could only know it afterwards. The possibility at the time was that he wasn't. If there was some way to show that he was a student, then that should be acceptable. It's the process of identification that we lack.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited November 2006
He <i>was</i> a student according to the dailybruin. He had forgotten his identification card that is required past 11 P.M.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Epidemic, I know he was a student who forgot his card, but the ONLY reason those police had the right to do what they did is because they need to assume that he ISN'T without proof. If, somehow, he was able to prove himself to be a student via computer in the library, i.e. the student login process that that university has (based off of what we have at TCU I'm guessing they'd have one too), then the police should back off. Having some stupid identification card for the sake of having it is ridiculous. Having a card in order to prove your right to be there is the important part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I wasnt trying to say that he shouldn't have been removed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Just clarified what he was.
I don't get it. Eye-witness accounts state that he was already on his way out the door. There was no need to "remove" him, he was already going. The situation is absurde to begin with.
For comparison, lets say you own some property, Tjosan. Say a house. I come in to your house to visit you, but you dont want me there, so you ask me to leave. Fair enough, its your house, you can make me leave.
So I say "No". I plop down on your couch and just wait. You threaten to call the cops if I don't leave. I insult your mother. You pick up the phone and dial the cops while I listen. I turn on the TV.
A few commercial breaks later, the cops show up at the front door. "You're under arrest for trespassing", they call out. "All right, I'll leave already", I reply. Is that good enough? No, they're going to arrest me anyway. I can complain that I'm willing to leave all I want, but its TOO LATE. I'm already under arrest.
This kid was in that same situation. Sure, he was willing to leave, once the Cops were ready to drag him out. But he was already under arrest for trespassing, and at that point its too late to just "agree to leave".
First one to concede looses? This place is about attempting to defeat opposing combatants now? Curious, I believe this is not part of the stated purpose for these forums.
<!--quoteo(post=1581350:date=Nov 27 2006, 03:19 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 27 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1581350[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But that's not how <b>argument</b> works! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You need to prove to the opposition the guilt of the officers. The opposition needs to prove to you the guilt of the student.
First one to concede looses. Stalemates turn stale and taste very bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1581425:date=Nov 27 2006, 07:27 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 27 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]1581425[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> First one to concede looses? <b>This place</b> is about attempting to defeat opposing combatants now? Curious, I believe this is not part of the stated purpose for these forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This gross misunderstanding calls for a haiku!
Two different posts, About two different things, Comedic or Not?
Comments
The youth should have left when asked (first by staff, then by officers). He didn't, resisted detention and was tasered. For me this isn't that much of a problem as the evidence I've seen would seem to indicate that you're only temporarily incapacitated after a taser shock, and it doesn't do lasting damage.
What annoys me is that after being incapacitated and handcuffed, the officers didn't just drag him outside, they made the whole thing a spectacle and brutally assaulted a man that posed no serious threat to them or other members of the public. The only way for him to inflict injury on anyone would be via kicking or biting.
Now, there were 4 cops and 1 of him. As long as they didn't do anything that could be considered as inflicting pain on the restrainee, I doubt any of the students there would have acted up. In this case you drag the guy to his feet with one guy on either side to hold him up and the other two acting as escorts until you get to the van. The less calm you act, the weaker and less authoritative you appear. I would have certainly acted since it immediately strikes me as an unwarranted show of force that is unlawful.
The videos THEM linked do not show any one of those people being repeatedly tasered and then asked to get up. In fact, almost all of them felt the desire to recuperate in the prone position. I do think the guy had opportunity to stand up after the first tasering, but I don't think tasering a restrainee is going to get them to co-operate any quicker, that's just simply sadistic.
When asked for their badge numbers, they should have simply said: "Come and find me when this guy is safely in the back of the van and I'll gladly give them to you". It's inexcusable to threaten law-abiding members of the public with violence, even if you think they're being cocky little ######.
Given the cop's track record, this incident proves he shouldn't be wearing a badge because he doesn't display the qualities that should be normally associated with it. He should be removed from 'the force' (me likey pun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />) because keeping someone with a track record of mishandling situations reflects terribly on an institution that is supposed to uphold the law.
[Edit] Just to say the only people who did the right thing in that situation were the students who stayed and then later gave accounts of the situation (including the video evidence), and also the ones who questioned the officers, pleaded with them to stop and asked them for their details. Oh, and the library clerk and the UCLA 'police' who were involved before what we saw.
Everyone else was bang out of order.
I think he meant that beatings more often that not lead to permanent or prolonged physical damage, and pepper spray would make everyone in the room choke. Probably a bad idea to use pepper spray indoors.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that he could have used far more violent means, and that it's fortunate he didn't.
To get back to Revlic: I don't see that as an excuse. What he did was neither appropriate nor acceptable. That he could have done something even MORE inappropriate and unacceptable does not speak in his defense.
After the very first tasering, Mostafa promised repeatedly to leave, and tried to point out that he had said he would leave even before he was tasered. So the cops waited a minute for him to recover, so he could get up.
Once he recovered, what did he do? He launched into a speech about how he was being racially profiled and all that junk, and how terrible the cops were. They tried to get him up to leave, and he refused. So much for his promises--actions speak louder than words, and this guy's actions were un-cooperative at every step of the way.
After the 2nd taser, I turned it off because I didn't need to see any more to know Mostafa was doing his best to resist arrest.
The student was grabbed (physically) by the officers <i>on his way out of the library</i>. At this point is where the video starts, and he yells for them to take their hands off him. Not long after he is tasered, and there is a long break when he is being held down and handcuffed, yelling about the violation and profiling, still under the effects of the taser.. the break is so they can handcuff him, not to let him recover. They then demand that he stand up, under a minute after the initial tasing.
They then repeatedly taser him, when they have two officers on hand who could very easily simply pick him up and carry him out. Instead, they demand that he stand up, and taser him again after he attempts to comply. He then goes limp and stays limp through repeated demands that he stand up, and repeated tasings.
I myself wish that they had not tasered him, or that the only reason why they did it was that he was resisting arrest or something like that. That would have placed the blame squarely at <i>his</i> feet, and he would not have been a victim of brutality but merely someone who got what was coming to him. But sadly, that is not the case. The man <i>was</i> brutalised. It is sad, but the truth. The sooner we all accept that and start basing our arguments on that, the sooner this can turn into a serious debate.
I wish we could actually try to argue about what happened here, instead of what we, individually, wish had happened.
I myself wish that they had not tasered him, or that the only reason why they did it was that he was resisting arrest or something like that. That would have placed the blame squarely at <i>his</i> feet, and he would not have been a victim of brutality but merely someone who got what was coming to him. But sadly, that is not the case. The man <i>was</i> brutalised. It is sad, but the truth. The sooner we all accept that and start basing our arguments on that, the sooner this can turn into a serious debate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Careful, now. If we all agreed it was brutality, then what would we be arguing about? It's pretty obvious from this statement that you don't wish to listen to anyone else's ideas on what happened, and that you are asserting your own ideas on what happened.
In the end, what we perceive is what we believe. Fact is what is generally accepted by most people. Actually, I don't really know what we're trying to discuss here, as the argument hasn't moved from it's initial position:
-One side thinks the student was the one who triggered the incident, but the officers may have taken it too far.
-The other side maintains that the officers are completely wrong and the incident is nothing more than a case of power trip, albeit one with higher consequences than the usual.
Let's settle this without rehashing the same arguments on the fifth page as we've had on the first to the fourth, huh? Otherwise, let the thread die honorably.
And I'll encourage everyone again (including myself) to re-read rule number one: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=1699903149161911296&showtopic=43638" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....showtopic=43638</a>
I know there is a sentiment that every viewpoint is valid, but I don't subscribe to that. If I show someone a white piece of paper and they claim that it is black, that is NOT a valid viewpoint. Their opinion is wrong.
That goes for rule number one too: Fact overrides opinion. If opinion goes against fact, sure, I'll consider that the facts are wrong, and the opinions are right. For all of five seconds.
I am not insisting on my personal viewpoint here, I am insisting on reality. The question of whether the actions of the officers were warranted or not is what we are supposed to debate here, and I am not trying to squelch that. What I AM trying to squelch are the conflicting versions of the events in that library. They are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of investigation. If there are conflicting versions of the events, one is true and one is false. One must be accepted, and one must be rejected.
I retract my statements about brutality. Those are opinions, not facts.
It seems that we need to go back to the beginning, stop arguing morality, and start arguing reality. A moral debate is not possible when the two sides each have their own version of what happened.
The fact of the matter is that there is only ONE sequence of events that is true. Either the student DID incite revolt and was tasered as a consequence of that, or the student was FIRST tasered repeatedly and THEN started not cooperating (either out of spite or out of inability due to the tasering).
Arguing morality does not make sense when each side is arguing from a different version of events. We need to establish a consensus on the chain of events first. I propose that this will prove impossible, as the two viewpoints each become almost impossible to defend in the light of one version or the other.
To cut to the chase: <u>I see a severe lack of evidence for the case that he revolted and resisted and was tasered as a consequence of that, and hereby ask for such evidence to be presented.</u> Without evidence for that version of events, and in light of the evidence for the other version of events, I cannot accept arguments based on that premise and will, for my part, consider this conversation to be over.
I am not asserting my ideas, I am asserting facts (facts backed up with videos and eyewittness accounts) OVER ideas (which are not backed up by videos, or indeed any other evidence).
I know there is a sentiment that every viewpoint is valid, but I don't subscribe to that. If I show someone a white piece of paper and they claim that it is black, that is NOT a valid viewpoint. Their opinion is wrong.
That goes for rule number one too: Fact overrides opinion. If opinion goes against fact, sure, I'll consider that the facts are wrong, and the opinions are right. For all of five seconds.
I am not insisting on my personal viewpoint here, I am insisting on reality. The question of whether the actions of the officers were warranted or not is what we are supposed to debate here, and I am not trying to squelch that. What I AM trying to squelch are the conflicting versions of the events in that library. They are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of investigation. If there are conflicting versions of the events, one is true and one is false. One must be accepted, and one must be rejected.
I retract my statements about brutality. Those are opinions, not facts.
It seems that we need to go back to the beginning, stop arguing morality, and start arguing reality. A moral debate is not possible when the two sides each have their own version of what happened.
The fact of the matter is that there is only ONE sequence of events that is true. Either the student DID incite revolt and was tasered as a consequence of that, or the student was FIRST tasered repeatedly and THEN started not cooperating (either out of spite or out of inability due to the tasering).
Arguing morality does not make sense when each side is arguing from a different version of events. We need to establish a consensus on the chain of events first. I propose that this will prove impossible, as the two viewpoints each become almost impossible to defend in the light of one version or the other.
To cut to the chase: <u>I see a severe lack of evidence for the case that he revolted and resisted and was tasered as a consequence of that, and hereby ask for such evidence to be presented.</u> Without evidence for that version of events, and in light of the evidence for the other version of events, I cannot accept arguments based on that premise and will, for my part, consider this conversation to be over.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Opinions are neither right nor wrong. Things can be both true and false at the same time. ("I am a liar") And arguing about what happened isn't really arguing, as there are no clear two sides, nor reasons behind the argument. What does it matter the chain of events unless that chain somehow changes what light you view the incident in?
No, I think what we're arguing here is whether or not the officers were right to use the taser, based our own standards of morality. Your previous statements, as you have admitted, assert that it was wrong; indeed, that tasering was matter-of-factly wrong. That was what I had issue with, but it's been cleared up, so it's no problem.
It's just as obvious to the defenders of the officers that the student was resisting all through the video as it is obvious to you that there is no evidence to support that claim. What we have here is a difference in observation, similar to what the police get when they interview witnesses.
If anyone has anything beyond simple intuition based on the video to share, (ie, police training or field experience, UCLA facilities use protocol, etc) then please do share it. Otherwise we'll just keep going around until this thread combusts.
As to evidence that the student resisted at all, I offer that if UCLA's procedures are anything like my beloved WVU's, then he would have had to defeat at least one layer of authority before anyone with arresting power would have been in the room. (being asked to leave by the student workers)
I have posted a link to the taser protocol earlier in the thread. From the evidence caught on tape, the officers had zero right or cause to utilize the taser on the individual. On tape, he did not resist arrest. He did not fight. He vocally stated that he was not fighting, and would/was trying to leave. He hung limp, and there were two officers; more than sufficient to carry a nonresponsive (NOTE: nonresponsive does NOT equate to aggressive or resisting), handcuffed suspect out the door bodily.
Short version. We have zero evidence other than the officers' statements that he was aggressive in any way.
If YOUR rights were being violated, if YOU had been tasered without warning, I highly doubt that you would simply quietly go along. Conservatives most especially so, given the stereotypical view concerning jackbooted thugs (aside from Bush and co.).
We do however have multiple eyewitness accounts and even a video tape, showing the officers abusing a handcuffed subject, and threatening the use of a potentially lethal weapon against a bystander demanding information that the officer is <b>legally required</b> to provide, after several prior requests for said information were ignored.
One thing I don't believe has been touched on yet in this thread is that its quite likely there was a relatively significant period of time between the police being called and them actually arriving. It's not unreasonable to assume that within that period, the student calmed down from his initially uncooperative state and was quite prepared to leave. However, as luck would have it, he was leaving just as the police were arriving.
In short, circumstance counts for more than a 7 minute video and 20/20 hindsight when dealing with these things. Yeah the student probably recieved a few too many tazers, however he did seem more interested in throwing a tantrum than initially cooperating.
So far, the bulk of the evidence supports a sequence of events in which I consider the taser use to have been a drastic over-reaction. In order to get me to change that opinion, it is necessary to present evidence that the sequence of events was different. We only have the officers' own words for that, and they are outnumbered by the bystanders. Why would the bystanders be lying? To slander the officers? On the other hand, the motivation for the officers to lie is clear: To present themselves in a better light.
Finally, I fail to see the point in basing your opinion on an unsubstantiated sequence of events. Yes, <u>if he had resisted and incited revolt, tasering him would be acceptable and justifiable. I am not disputing that.</u> But where is the evidence to support that? For all I know, that never happened, so what is the point of arguing whether the taser use WOULD have been acceptable IF that had happened?
I maintain that this is not as much a matter of opinion as it is a matter of evidence. I once again ask for evidence to be presented that he was resisting arrest and inciting revolt prior to the tasering. Innocent until proven guilty.
You don't taser innocent men. And THAT is an opinion.
The officers would be borderline justified in tasing the subject ONCE for restrainment purposes. After that point, they could simply pick him up and carry him out, to get him out of the public eye. Not repeatedly tase the subject in front of an upset crowd of students, armed with cameras and some knowledge of law.
The statement "This statement is a lie." in reference to itself is not 'both right and wrong', it is an intentionally paradoxical statement. It can be considered neither right nor wrong, as it contradicts itself, by design, as a statement of fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is paradoxical; it is neither right nor wrong. It is a foundation of fuzzy set theory, which means it can be partially included in a set, in this case, the sets of "right" and "wrong." Now, that means it can be <i>both</i> right and wrong at the same time.
Quite frankly, the reasons for having to defend an example made for such a purpose as supporting the idea that opinions can be both right and wrong are beyond me. I have no idea why you called me out on this.
<!--quoteo(post=1581079:date=Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]1581079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I have posted a link to the taser protocol earlier in the thread. From the evidence caught on tape, the officers had zero right or cause to utilize the taser on the individual. On tape, he did not resist arrest. He did not fight. He vocally stated that he was not fighting, and would/was trying to leave. He hung limp, and there were two officers; more than sufficient to carry a nonresponsive (NOTE: nonresponsive does NOT equate to aggressive or resisting), handcuffed suspect out the door bodily.
Short version. We have zero evidence other than the officers' statements that he was aggressive in any way.
If YOUR rights were being violated, if YOU had been tasered without warning, I highly doubt that you would simply quietly go along. Conservatives most especially so, given the stereotypical view concerning jackbooted thugs (aside from Bush and co.).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we can all read a document on protocol. And I can read all those damned documents about how I need to write up software specifications in the "real world" they feed me in class, but I know from experience that each firm has it's own format for doing these things; I'll need to learn the specifics of it again from each employer.
Standard operating procedure sometimes varies a lot from what the books tell you. I'd like input from someone whose actually been there, or knows how it actually works.
Plus a lot those judgment calls depend on what's happening in the heat of the moment. Again, someone who's been there would have better insight. I have my own opinions, but we've already been over those, and again, and again.
<!--quoteo(post=1581079:date=Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]1581079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
We do however have multiple eyewitness accounts and even a video tape, showing the officers abusing a handcuffed subject, and threatening the use of a potentially lethal weapon against a bystander demanding information that the officer is <b>legally required</b> to provide, after several prior requests for said information were ignored.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And we've been over this, too. It's what we're discussion, in fact. If you don't want to discuss this, and instead want to continue making these kinds of forceful assertions, then please just read everyone else's thoughts.
When you go on the offensive like this, it makes it hard for the opposition not to take a hard defensive stance and throw grief at you. From your hostility and the way the thread is named, it seems more like you came here asking for vindication of your own beliefs than to get other perspectives on the situation. That doesn't really qualify as a discussion so much as a solicitation. I'm just saying that that's the what I get from it, and I'd be surprised if others didn't.
I'm not taking sides in this thread anymore, so don't take me the wrong way. From here on in, I'm just trying to mediate the discussion. Keep an open mind; if you're on the side of the officers, entertain the possibility that the police made every wrong choice. What would cause this? If you're on the side of the student, entertain the possibility that the crowd was highly charged, probably holding anti-authoritarian views, and had been listening to really blood curdling screams. Screams that sort of defy the gravity of the situation: the shock hurts like hell I'm sure, but he's not dying, and that's what it really sounds like.
If we can't do these things, then we should probably stop posting in this thread.
For that, we have the statements from the officers, the statements from the crowd, and the statement from Mostafa. None of which has been actually provided, or even linked to, in this thread. Despite that, people have referenced them as absolutely supporting their own viewpoint--on both sides.
We continue to refer to events before the video as if we all know what happened, even though clearly none of us know what happened. Perhaps first we should attempt to establish the course of events leading up to the FIRST tasing? And then argue about whether subsequent tasings were brutality or not?
Rob, a statement can be crafted to contradict itself. However, a contradiction cannot exist in actual facts. As lolfighter said previously, if a piece of paper is white, and someone calls it black, they are wrong. No matter what their opinion, the facts support that the paper is actually white. In this case, we have a tape showing the officers brutalizing, if not torturing a restrained suspect. This makes their brutality fact. You can show someone the tape, and when viewed objectively, see that they were utilizing unneccessary amounts of force on an unresisting victim.
And I'm sorry, the argument about how a situation is 'really' handled versus the documented requirements is simply a statement of how slack the enforcement of the marked rules are. You can receive a speeding ticket for one mile over the speed limit, regardless of if 'no other officer ever ticketted me for it around here'. Same thing cuts the other way. These officers overstepped the listed rules on taser use. They are simply being called on the fact at this point, given that they repeatedly used a taser on a nonresponsive, restrained suspect. The fact that the rules for use of a potentially-lethal weapon are only casually enforced is more a cause for alarm than a student not leaving a library.
Uh, no. Those were Campus Police, not 'city'. Colleges out here have 'police' departments on-site. They can't carry firearms without a civilian-grade permit, though they can much more easily be certified for pepper spray or taser permits during the course of duty. They can also make arrests. These aren't your 'mall cops', they hover somewhere between rent-a-pigs and actual police officers, and have worse ego problems than a sheriff in a truckstop town frequented by the highway patrol.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a little late, but I'd like to disagree with you Talesin... I work for the UC System (UC-Davis). You're right, out here, campuses have police departments (note the lack of your sarcastic quotes). They are full fledged police department, and are no different from normal city police departments, they are just located on a campus.
<a href="http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/about_mission.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/about_mission.html</a>]
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Police officers of the UCLA Police Department are duly sworn peace officers under section 830.2(b) of the California Penal Code.<b> The officers of the department are armed and possess the same authority under the law as municipal police officers.</b> UCLA Police Officers patrol the campus 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They enforce the law, arrest violators, investigate and suppress crime, investigate traffic and bicycle accidents, and provide a full range of services to the community. The Police Department enforces all applicable local, state and federal laws.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cwxf, the video starts as the student is trying to leave. The 'get your hands off me' is when the officers had stopped him at the front door. The first tasering is the first one on the tape. Again. PLEASE watch the entire video before you comment. I also linked two articles which should be read, for edification purposes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The tape may be rolling, but the camera is located on the opposite side of the room, pointed at nothing in particular, and doesn't capture very clear sound either. The camera doesn't get close enough to the subject to offer much meaningful evidence until after he's already been tased. All we know before that is that he was yelling at the officers.
Ergo, you have no evidence as to whether that was justified or not. Just as I said.
Also, I read your article, and they didn't know what happened before the first tasing either. They did <i>briefly</i> describe two completely different versions of the events, one most likely taken from Mostafa and the other from the police, but neither version was included in enough detail to make any judgements from.
So again, you've got no evidence.
The exact course of events is of importance here because it dictates my opinion of the officers' actions. I am not rigorously for or against the use of tasers - rather, whether they should be used or not depends on the situation. And therefore, depending on the situation, my opinion of the officers' actions will differ drastically.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, we dont need to argue what happened on this scene, when it's more productive to argue the ethics assuming it happened a certain way. Instead of arguing what happened on this scene (since apparently the video and eye witness documentary doesnt tell the whole story) why dont we argue the ethics before applying them? In what degree is the officer entitled to act in a given situation etc.. etc..
===
As a side note, I recommend we stop titling threads so aggressively. It immediately puts the opposition on the defensive, and that's never a good way to start a discussion, one side at the other's throat. I think we should make them instead a proposition. To use this thread as example, it might better be phrased "Student tazed 5 times at UCLA, is this Brutality?" or some such.
I could very well say, "Kerry is the antichrist" in an attempt to start a discussion, but I won't get nearly as effective of a reply as if I would have said, "I'm not sure of Kerry's intentions." I'll mull over adding this as a rule, if anyone has input.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur with adding that as a rule dear. :-)
(I know you are watching)
Rob, a statement can be crafted to contradict itself. However, a contradiction cannot exist in actual facts. As lolfighter said previously, if a piece of paper is white, and someone calls it black, they are wrong. No matter what their opinion, the facts support that the paper is actually white. In this case, we have a tape showing the officers brutalizing, if not torturing a restrained suspect. This makes their brutality fact. You can show someone the tape, and when viewed objectively, see that they were utilizing unneccessary amounts of force on an unresisting victim.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fact is something tied to conventional logic, and as I said before can be interpreted differently depending on popular <i>opinion</i>. Before Copernicus, it was fact that the earth was the center of the universe. Even if some people believed otherwise, it was still well known that you were supposed to believe it. A couple of centuries ago it was a fact that slavery was legal, now it's not.
And your video evidence is open to the same kinds of interpretation. Again I say that if it is not, if we can take your <i>opinion</i> of what you see in the video as fact, then this thread is pointless because what should we be debating? How right you are?
In any case, since paradoxes do exist in conventional logic, "This statement is a lie," it's pretty good proof that conventional logic can't be used for all circumstances. Therefore, things can sometimes be both true and false. This happens all the time in nature. It's both hot and cold outside; we call it warm. It's both black and white; we call it gray. Conventional logical has room for none of these concepts. Anyway, if you want to discuss the merits of conventional logic, I'd be happy to do so in another thread. It's off topic in here.
What remains is that you take your own interpretation of the video and assert it as fact. That's not a very balanced way to begin a discussion.
<!--quoteo(post=1581185:date=Nov 27 2006, 12:35 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 27 2006, 12:35 AM) [snapback]1581185[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And I'm sorry, the argument about how a situation is 'really' handled versus the documented requirements is simply a statement of how slack the enforcement of the marked rules are. You can receive a speeding ticket for one mile over the speed limit, regardless of if 'no other officer ever ticketted me for it around here'. Same thing cuts the other way. These officers overstepped the listed rules on taser use. They are simply being called on the fact at this point, given that they repeatedly used a taser on a nonresponsive, restrained suspect. The fact that the rules for use of a potentially-lethal weapon are only casually enforced is more a cause for alarm than a student not leaving a library.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People don't always follow the rules. Yes you can get pulled over for speeding by 1 mile and hour. By law you should get a fine, but many times (if you're not a ###### about it) an officer will cut you some slack, because there are extenuating circumstances. Circumstances like: it was your first offense on record, it's Christmas Eve, it's late, you were going downhill, everyone else was speeding and so you'd be a hazard if you were going slower than them, etc.
If we're going with "innocent until proven guilty," prove to everyone that there were no extenuating circumstances for the officers, don't just point to the video and expect everyone else to see the same things you do.
Did the officers taser the student? Yes. Nobody is disputing that.
Is the student's guilt proven? No. Therefore, he is innocent.
Innocent man tasered.
Actually, as far as "innocent until proven guilty" goes, I see it like this:
Did the officers taser the student? Yes. Nobody is disputing that.
Is the student's guilt proven? No. Therefore, he is innocent.
Innocent man tasered.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Factually speaking, we know he was in the Library without identification. In TCU you cannot even enter without swiping your ID. This leads me to my call on this situation.
It should never have even occurred. Why is it even possible to enter without ID verification? This situation outgrew itself because the proper measures had not been taken <i>beforehand</i>.
Should the officer have provided his Badge number to the student requesting it? Yes, of course. But I prioritize getting that kid out of the library first. Hypothetically speaking, what if he wasn't what he claimed to be. What if he was our worst case scenario. An unauthorized person who intended on some harmful course of action. If he was? Instant failure. We'd be complaining about how people are dead and the school's poor security measures have failed us. So rather than switching sides of the fence then, I hold that position now. Get him out, fire the officers, and place devices that cannot be bypassed without an ID scan.
Here is all you need:
<img src="http://www.alphacard.com/id-card-products/mag_encoder-250.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
&
<img src="http://www.tyner.com/magnetic/msr206.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Retail Value: $1,100+
Actually, as far as "innocent until proven guilty" goes, I see it like this:
Did the officers taser the student? Yes. Nobody is disputing that.
Is the student's guilt proven? No. Therefore, he is innocent.
Innocent man tasered.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's not how argument works! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You need to prove to the opposition the guilt of the officers. The opposition needs to prove to you the guilt of the student.
First one to concede looses. Stalemates turn stale and taste very bad.
@Cold nite:
He could have entered the library during public hours (before 11pm) and simply stayed passed his bedtime, so to speak.
@Epidemic, I know he was a student who forgot his card, but the ONLY reason those police had the right to do what they did is because they need to assume that he ISN'T without proof. If, somehow, he was able to prove himself to be a student via computer in the library, i.e. the student login process that that university has (based off of what we have at TCU I'm guessing they'd have one too), then the police should back off. Having some stupid identification card for the sake of having it is ridiculous. Having a card in order to prove your right to be there is the important part.
I mean, the fact is that he was a student, but they could only know it afterwards. The possibility at the time was that he wasn't. If there was some way to show that he was a student, then that should be acceptable. It's the process of identification that we lack.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Epidemic, I know he was a student who forgot his card, but the ONLY reason those police had the right to do what they did is because they need to assume that he ISN'T without proof. If, somehow, he was able to prove himself to be a student via computer in the library, i.e. the student login process that that university has (based off of what we have at TCU I'm guessing they'd have one too), then the police should back off. Having some stupid identification card for the sake of having it is ridiculous. Having a card in order to prove your right to be there is the important part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I wasnt trying to say that he shouldn't have been removed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Just clarified what he was.
So I say "No". I plop down on your couch and just wait. You threaten to call the cops if I don't leave. I insult your mother. You pick up the phone and dial the cops while I listen. I turn on the TV.
A few commercial breaks later, the cops show up at the front door. "You're under arrest for trespassing", they call out. "All right, I'll leave already", I reply. Is that good enough? No, they're going to arrest me anyway. I can complain that I'm willing to leave all I want, but its TOO LATE. I'm already under arrest.
This kid was in that same situation. Sure, he was willing to leave, once the Cops were ready to drag him out. But he was already under arrest for trespassing, and at that point its too late to just "agree to leave".
But that's not how <b>argument</b> works! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You need to prove to the opposition the guilt of the officers. The opposition needs to prove to you the guilt of the student.
First one to concede looses. Stalemates turn stale and taste very bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1581425:date=Nov 27 2006, 07:27 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 27 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]1581425[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
First one to concede looses? <b>This place</b> is about attempting to defeat opposing combatants now? Curious, I believe this is not part of the stated purpose for these forums.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This gross misunderstanding calls for a haiku!
Two different posts,
About two different things,
Comedic or Not?